| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/20/2008 6:54:12 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 02/16/2008 3:13:15 PM PST by restornu
I once met a new convert, a college student, in my town of Appleton, Wisconsin, who showed me a couple of thick books loaded with accusations against the Church. She was upset and angry and planning to leave the Church. I tried to calm her down, and one by one, we discussed the arguments that were bothering her. Once one attack was diffused, she raised another, and another, and I think I helped her see that there was little merit to what she had raised so far, and that the bulk of the anti-Mormon material was truly deceptive. Then she just dug in her heels and said, "Well, it doesn't matter. If only 10% of all the things in here are true, that's enough to destroy the Church!" She left the Church, and if she had lived 2,000 years ago as an early Christian convert, I'm sure she would have left the Church then, too. After all, if only 10% of the things that the anti-Christians said were true, then that would be enough to destroy Christianity, right? (Oh, how I wish modern education would help people understand that critical thinking means more than just thinking of criticism.)
Anti-Mormon literature is often ignorant of what Latter-day Saints really believe and especially ignorant of LDS authors have written in response to anti-Mormon attacks. Many of the common attacks against the Church are regurgitated arguments from the nineteenth century, arguments which have been thoroughly and carefully treated by responsible LDS writers who do much more than just talk about some warm feeling in their hearts. But the anti-Mormon writers and speakers of today make it sound as if no Mormon has ever dared to respond to their awesome arguments, and that the Church can only retreat and hide when faced with an intellectual battle.
The flaws in some standard anti-Mormon arguments have been pointed out by a number of non-LDS writers. In one interesting example, two evangelical critics of the Church, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, presented a paper at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting, April 25, 1997 that warned the evangelical community about the impressive efforts of LDS scholars and criticized the blind approach of typical anti-Mormon literature. Their article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" (later published in Trinity Journal, Fall 1998, pp. 179-205), is one of the most intriguing non-LDS articles I've ever encountered from critics of the Church. (One of several copies of it on the Web can be found at ComeToZarahemla.org, Ben Spackman's Website, or Cephas Ministry.)
Mosser and Owen note that anti-LDS writers have ignored the work of some LDS scholars who are providing "robust defenses" of the LDS faith. In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few critics have done: they have actually read a wide variety of LDS scholarly writings. As a result, they came to the following five conclusions:
The first [conclusion] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories--traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.(Further analysis based on the paper of Mosser and Owen has been provided by Justin Hart in "Winning the Battle and Not Knowing It," in MeridianMagazine.com, an article in five parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. For an interesting example of the issues that Owen and Mosser have raised, see Paul Owen's rebuttal of anti-Mormon John Weldon's response to the original article of Mosser and Owen. Owen appears to be appalled at the "head-in-the-sand" approach of John Weldon, who has demonstrated the very problems that Mosser and Owen speak against in their paper and says that Weldon's anti-Mormon "intellectual narrow-mindedness" is "astounding."A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibility interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.
Latter-day Saints who study the responses of LDS writers to anti-Mormon criticisms know that there are many excellent resources which may refute or at least defuse many of the arguments hurled against us. These resources, found at places like FARMS, The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRLDS.org), SHIELDS, and even my little Web site (including my Mormon Answers section), do not rely on blind faith and emotional feelings to deal with the critics - though there are some tough issues like polygamy for which we don't have good answers (ugh - I really don't like polygamy!). But for many issues, Mosser and Owen are correct in observing that there are "robust defenses." In fact, many of the defenses turn the tables on the critics and leave them in intellectually untenable positions. In fact, we could turn around and ask them a few tough questions of our own -- see, for example, "My Turn--Questions for Anti-Mormons."
There is plenty of room for decent people to disagree with us. Sometimes I even disagree with "us." Most Protestants and Catholics who disagree with us are not "anti-Mormons" but simply people of another denomination. But when someone strives to stir up anger toward the Church and relies on misinformation or half-truths, then I'm inclined to apply the anti-Mormon label--especially when they do it for a living. On the borderline are well meaning people who feel an evangelical duty to battle "cults" (which tend to be any group that disagrees with them) and write articles regurgitating the sensationalist and shocking diatribes of full-blooded anti-Mormons. I tend to call such critics anti-Mormons as well (I sense that they usually don't mind the title, unless they are posing as "loving friends of the Mormons" in order to launch more effective assaults on our faith). Those of other faiths who disagree with us and engage in civil discourse with us about their differences are usually not "anti-Mormons" but perhaps simply critics or just adherents of a different faith.
But others are deliberately deceptive, at least in my opinion. Some know what we really believe, but go out of their way to distort it. I feel that way about Ed Decker's classic work, The God Makers. His movies and writings create the impression that temples are evil, scary places with devil worship, homosexuality, and conspiracy. He alleges that Mormons are plotting to take over the country and impose a theological dictatorship. He warns people not to pray to understand the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, frightening them with the idea that Satan will come and deceive them if they do. I think this goes beyond the sincere.
One of the strangest and most dishonest tactics of some anti-Mormons is falsely claiming to have advanced degrees in order to buttress their credibility. An amazing example is Dee Jay Nelson, who gained the trust of many people by claiming to have academic credentials and an international scholarly reputation--all of which was entirely bogus. He was a con-man who led many gullible people out of the Church during the peak of his illegitimate career as an anti-Mormon lecturer. Others include "Dr." Walter Martin and the amusing "Dr. Dr." John Ankenberg (yes, he lists himself as "Dr. Dr." as if he had two doctorates, though he lacks even one - and no real Ph.D. with two degrees would describe himself as "Dr. Dr."!). The father of anti-Mormons, Doctor Philastrus Hurlbut, was actually named "Doctor" by his parents but lacked a degree. I don't think he promoted himself as if he had the degree, but that title has been used by others to increase respect for that immoral and twice excommunicated anti-Mormon. Other questionable anti-Mormon "Drs." include John Weldon, and James White.
Michael T. Griffith has a page showing some of the tactics of a prominent anti-Mormon. It illustrates how some anti-Mormons seem to deliberately distort LDS writings to achieve their own questionable purposes. The anti-Mormon in this case is Mr. Bill McKeever, the director of the anti-Mormon group Mormonism Research Ministry. I have also corresponded with Mr. McKeever and encountered yet another tactic that typifies many of the self-appointed cult bashers on the Internet. I grew frustrated that my responses to lengthy lists of charges and allegations were largely ignored, and simply followed by other lengthy letters loaded with more allegations and accusations than I could possibly deal with. Any issue I addressed was ignored and followed by additional long letters on new topics. Soon it was clear that the communication was intended to be only one way. It took many requests and finally a complaint to McKeever's e-mail provider before Mr. McKeever would quit sending me unsolicited lengthy anti-Mormon articles.
But that may just be enthusiastic zeal. Maybe it's being overly enthusiastic that leads me to use the "anti" label with some folks. Look, it's subjective, and may be used in error sometimes.
Among the specific tactics used by those I consider anti-Mormons, an especially interesting one is their creative use of definitions to classify Mormons as a cult or as non-Christian. Ironically, the non-standard definitions they craft would also condemn Christ and His early disciples in the New Testament as cultists and non-Christians. For details, see my page, "Do Latter-day Saints Belong to a Cult?" For a tongue-in-cheek demonstration of related anti-Mormon techniques, see my spoof page about an exciting new software product, CultMaster 2000.
A useful resource for information of major anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon organizations, with links to refutational material, is the Critics Corner at Shields-Research.org.
An excellent resource exposing many anti-Mormon tactics is They Lie in Wait to Deceive, Volumes 1-4 by Robert and Rosemary Brown.
The fact is that evangelical Protestantism represents a faction, no more, of a minority faction, no more, of Christianity. That faction arose, relatively late, in northwestern Europe, and it is still basically dominant only among those of northwestern European extraction. It is distinctly a minority in Italy and Brazil and Mexico and Spain and France and Argentina, and it is virtually invisible in Greece and Romania and Russia and Armenia and the Ukraine, to say nothing of Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Iraq.Latter-day Saints do not claim that their faith-group is exhaustive of Christendom. We recognize that there are Catholic and Orthodox and other Christians. Some evangelical Protestants seem reluctant, however, to grant that the Copts or the Catholics are Christians at all. Some say so implicitly, and others have told me so explicitly, under direct questioning.
Latter-day Saints do, of course, claim that God has acted to restore the true fullness of Christianity, and that that fulness is embodied in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Such a claim can seem arrogant, and I, for one, would be very hesitant to make it -- indeed, I would refuse to make it -- were it not for the presupposition of direct revelation that undergirds it.
To assert, as some evangelicals have declared directly to me, that they alone are Christians, and that they have arrived at their unique Christianity by virtue of their own reading of the Bible -- implicitly dismissing the other claimants to Christianity as either preternaturally stupid or irrationally evil or some mixture of the two -- seems to me both arrogant and, in view of the fact that the preponderant majority of world "Christians" hold to different opinions, quite unlikely to be true. Even to claim that evangelical Protestants alone are "biblical" or "orthodox" Christians, seems an improbable and smug declaration.
That is the point. Ironically, Latter-day Saints rely, here, upon God's grace, where some of my evangelical interlocutors -- the ones that I have in mind -- seem quite evidently to trust in their own understanding.
But most envamgelicals, though critical of our religion, are not what I would call "anti-Mormons." In fact, many are very respectful and tolerant, in spite of their strong disagreement with our views. The evangelicals I have know over the years have largely been fine examples of Christians who were not out to defame us or stir up fear about the Mormons, and have been great people to dialog with.
Some anti-Mormons seem ignorant of Hugh Nibley's work. When forced to confront his writings, many rapidly dismiss him as irresponsible, biased, sloppy, deceitful, etc. On the other hand, there are some non-LDS folks who have pointed out a variety of flaws in Nibley's writings. While Nibley did much to advance study of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, LDS people must understand that his work can be rather dated now and often contains errors that he is not around to correct now. Enjoy it, but proceed with caution. But proceed with even more caution with anything I write, for I am far less competent and qualified that he was - I'm just an amateur apologist, guys.
Regarding Nibley, as brilliant and talented as he was, he spent much of his life writing for LDS audiences, and thus may not be widely recognized by other scholars in his field. in spite of some great early publications. That's my opinion, though I have incredible respect for him, having watched him in action and having read much of his work.
Some related insight into Nibley is provided by two well educated anti-LDS writers, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, mentioned above, whose article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?," is one of the most intriguing anti-LDS articles I've ever encountered. It warns that anti-LDS writers have essentially completely ignored the significant scholarship of Hugh Nibley and many other LDS scholars who are providing "robust defenses" of the LDS faith. In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few anti-LDS writers have done: they have actually read a variety of LDS scholarly writings. Their response, paraphrased, is: "Wake up, anti-Mormons! We're losing the intellectual war without even knowing it!" Here is what they say about Nibley:
Hugh Nibley: The Father of Mormon Scholarly Apologetics
Hugh Nibley is without question the pioneer of LDS scholarship and apologetics. Since earning his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley in 1939, Nibley has produced a seemingly endless stream of books and articles covering a dauntingly vast array of subject matter. Whether writing on Patristics, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the apocrypha, the culture of the Ancient Near East or Mormonism, he demonstrates an impressive command of the original languages, primary texts and secondary literature. He has set a standard which younger LDS intellectuals are hard pressed to follow. There is not room here for anything approaching an exhaustive examination of Nibley's works.(1) We must confess with Truman Madsen, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at Brigham Young University: "To those who know him best, and least, Hugh W. Nibley is a prodigy, an enigma, and a symbol."(2)
The few evangelicals who are aware of Hugh Nibley often dismiss him as a fraud or pseudo-scholar. Those who would like to quickly dismiss his writings would do well to heed Madsen's warning: "Ill-wishing critics have suspected over the years that Nibley is wrenching his sources, hiding behind his footnotes, and reading into antique languages what no responsible scholar would every read out. Unfortunately, few have the tools to do the checking."(3) The bulk of Nibley's work has gone unchallenged by evangelicals despite the fact that he has been publishing relevant material since 1946. Nibley's attitude toward evangelicals: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."(4)
No doubt there are flaws in Nibley's work, but most counter-cultists do not have the tools to demonstrate this. Few have tried.(5) It is beyond the scope of this paper to critique Nibley's methodology or to describe the breadth of his apologetic.(6) Whatever flaws may exist in his methodology, Nibley is a scholar of high caliber. Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigiliae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review.(7) Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom.(8) The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"(9) Nibley has not worked in a cloister. It is amazing that few evangelical scholars are aware of his work. In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work.
Footnotes from the above passage:
1. FARMS is currently working on a twenty volume collection of Nibley's works, ten of which are already published (abbr. CWHN).
2. Truman Madsen, foreword to Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), ix.
4. Quoted by Madsen, ibid., xi.
5. In fact, the only substantial evangelical interaction we have seen to date is James White's 56 page (single spaced) disputation of the proper syntax of the pronoun in Matthew 16:18. This paper can be acquired from the Alpha & Omega Ministries Internet site.
6. For a sharp critique of Nibley's methodology from an LDS perspective see Kent P. Jackson in BYU Studies 28 no. 4 (Fall 1988):114-119.
7. Specific references can be found in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1990), 1:xviii-lxxxvii.
8. See the contributions by these men in volume one of Nibley's festschrift By Study and Also by Faith.
9. See Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 147 n. 105.
Other specific resources:
And this is EXACTLY what you'll be saying when words of your Founder and previous leaders got trotted out in this thread: "They wuzn't speaking for the LORD then; they'll have to answer to Jesus over them words."
The TRUE 'mormon' church are those who still BELIEVE what is written here (THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS -- SECTION 132)and will have their stuff taken by the Gov't other than go against a CLEAR command of GOD!!
The ones AFRAID of the US Gov't, knuckled under to the COMMANDS OF MEN and gave up some precious truth to become a state. (Declaration #1)
BTTT
Haven’t Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?
___________________________________________
What credibility ????
I noticed you did not dispute the truth of anything Zakeet stated in post #38, so I am left to assume that the facts s/he alleges are true.
The assertion Strang had no authority in the Priesthood of the Mormon Church is highly disputed.
Strang was an intelligent man who was a licensed as a lawyer. He did indeed join the Mormon Church in February 1844, and was sent by Joseph Smith in April 1844 to Wisconsin to enroll new converts and scout out a new location for Zion. Thus, he only spent about two months with Smith. But Strang was deeply admired and respected by Joseph.
Strang appeared in Nauvoo shortly after Smith was killed and presented a document (still existent in the Rare Documents section of the Yale University Library), apparently in Smith's own handwriting and bearing a Nauvoo postmark dated June 19, 1844 wherein Strang was declared the Designated Successor to Smith.
A number of distinguished Mormons were convinced the letter was genuine, including: John Whitmer, BoM Witness David Whitmer, BoM Witness Martin Harris, Hiram Page, John E. Page, William McLellin, William Smith (Joseph's only surviving brother), Emma Smith (Joseph's widow), the sisters of Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph's Mother), William Marks, George Miller, and an array of other scribes and family members.
Each of the above individuals rejected Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as successors to Joseph Smith, and in turn left the Utah Mormons in favor of Strang.
Brigham Young was excommunicated by a high council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints led by Strang on April 6, 1846.
You can read more about the interesting story of the Strangites HERE.
It was not directed to a particular Freeper, personally. Therefore it is not “making it personal.”
Well stated.
IMHO, I would further simplify the position that any group which denies the Deity of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, the Son of God, doesn't qualify to be called "Christian".
One can even understand it!
I see you woke up with mocking spirit:)
Concerning that:
Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Institute for Religious Research, 1992)
The Joseph Smith papyri, long thought to have been destroyed in a fire in Chicago in the late 19th century, had in reality found their way to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, where they came to public attention in 1967. Their rediscovery established for certain that Joseph Smith had authentic, ancient Egyptian documents in his possession when he produced the Book of Abraham.Unlike the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, which scholars were never able to examine [because "they were taken back up to heaven by angels," IIRC], these Egyptian texts give the actual documents from which Joseph Smith claimed to have produced one of the LDS church's scriptures. Therefore, they provide the first real opportunity to examine the prophet's claims in an objective and scientific manner.
In the first two chapters of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, former Mormon and Brigham Young University graduate Charles M. Larson, recounts the circumstances under which Joseph Smith acquired the two Egyptian scrolls, and his claim to have identified one of them as an account by the Biblical patriarch Abraham of his sojourn in Egypt (as described in Genesis 12:10-20). Then in chapters 3-10 Larson steps the reader through a detailed array of primary physical evidences which establish four major points: (1) the papyri which came to public attention in 1967 (color photographs of which are reproduced in the book) are indisputably those which Joseph had in his possession when he produced the Book of Abraham, (2) Joseph Smith did purport that the Book of Abraham was a translation from one of these papyrus scrolls, (3) the scrolls are now known to date from around the time of Christ, some 2,000 years after the time of Abraham, and (4) the scrolls have been identified by Egyptologists — including LDS scholars — as common, pagan Egyptian burial documents, that do not mention Abraham and have no connection to the contents of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.
8 scholars refute the Book of Abraham Translation by Joseph Smith, excerpts from a couple follow:
In his 1912 publication of "Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator,"I also think the following information is important to read as concerns the papyrus.
"The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the 'Book of Abraham,' and 'translated' or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the 'Pearl of Great Price' are parts of the well known 'Book of the Dead.' Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book."Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin
"A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the 'Book of Abraham' is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages."
Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich
The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph SmithSo....from the above, among other claims, Joseph Smith wrote that the papyrus was, in fact: 1) written by Abraham; 2) the papyrus, itself, then, necessarily was made at the time that Abraham lived; 3) that he, Joseph Smith, TRANSLATED some ancient Records into English and called it the Book of Abraham; and 4) the Book of Abraham is the cornerstone of the Mormon Church.
(commentary on history and representations of images on papyrus)Better images in the LDS text are found here:
Facsimile 1
Facsimile 2
Facsimile 3Better image of the papyrus found at the Museum:
The papyrus find is authenticated: "The Facsimile Found: The Recovery of Joseph Smith's Papyrus Manuscripts", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Winter 1967), p. 64"
.
Joseph Smith claimed that the papyrus, itself, dates back to the time when Abraham lived (how else could it have been "penned by Abraham"?). However, "from paleographic and historical considerations, the papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60." However, that date not only post-dates Abraham's death, but Christ's as well. (Abraham lived during the Middle Bronze Age, which dates back to nearly 4,000 years ago.)
Confronted with the above inconsistencies, the Mormon church claims that there is text missing from the translations, thereby, outright dismissing all logical and scientific questions.
Regardless of their protestations, however, based upon examination of the papyrus by Egyptian scholars, there is no substantial text missing from the papyrus, other than the pieces obviously missing. Syntactically and contextually, it is a complete document: it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, is consistent with the funerary papyrus then commonly found (see the award winning documentary, The Lost Book of Abraham, previously linked by Zakeet). Additionally, and its length is typical for a funerary papyrus. There would be no need or normality for the papyrus to be LONGER than what currently exists to make it "whole." Anything added onto it would be deemed "out of place" an unnecessary. Liken this to the "Pledge of Allegiance." It is complete and freestanding as is. Adding page upon page to the pledge would be ridiculous and have no longer have anything to do with the purpose and intent of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Mormon Church, for example, refer to Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. [see The Pearl of Great Price A Selection from the Revelations, Translations, and Narrations of Joseph Smith, First Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints].
Both the Old and New Testament Scriptures are replete with warnings concerning false prophets. For instance:
Deu 18:21-22:
21) And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22) When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.The Apostle Paul gave warnings about those who "preach another gospel" than Christ's:Deu 13:1-3:
1) If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2) and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3) you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
1 John 4:1:
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8, 9The Mormons claims cannot stand. Their claimed prophet was shown by the evidence, to be in error concerning his claims regarding the contents of the papyrus, the dating of the papyrus, and contradict what was already written in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, anything and everything further that Joseph Smith states is automatically suspect and, imho, without credibility.
God is not the god of division. He would therefore not be contradicting Himself and His words. Either God is right or He is not. If He is right, then all things must be measured against what He says is true, not what fallible human beings claim is true. If what a fallible human being claims to be goes against God's word, then it is the fallible human being who must be given the doubt, not God. The New Testament, which the Mormons claim to use, shows above that if "another gospel is preached," it is not of God. The Old Testament states that if what a claimed prophet states is not true, then he is not a prophet of God, he is a false prophet.
Either one believes that all of God is right or they do not. Believing only that some of God and/or some of God's Word is right makes all of God wrong and the fallible human right, and, therefore, the false prophet's words become the standard upon which someone believes, not God.
I say, "No".
But, I don't have enough interest in the question to read all that in order to discover differently.
Elsie that was an excerpt from the thread topic if you had read it before reacting you would have known.
“Now I know many for what ever reason feel differently but there are about 13 millions of us who did receive a witness from the Lord!”
I love that claim for so many reasons!
1. “13 millions” - this is a claim that is unsubstantiated
in any way. This -> MAY <- be the number on the membership
rolls, but is:
a. unverifiable by any independent & objective source
b. unverifiable that each had “a witness”
c. since mormonism contradicts scripture, the “witness”
was not “from the Lord”. Perhaps his brother...
2. “If you read carefully it was not some dude from upstate NY who made those comments, it was the Lord himself who was once again preparing to restoring his Church on earth and needed to get a few things straight before proceeding.”
I love this claim for so many reasons!
a. It is unverifiable by any outside, objective source
b. It violates scripture in so many ways
c. It demeans God
Thanks Resty! A wonderful spoof to brighten this thread.
so many of you to change the subject of this thread (by hijack) LOL
You are free to start you own thread topic!
The subject of this thread is......credibility. The article of this subject thread brings up Nibley. The basis of Mormonism lies upon the credibility of its own alleged prophet, Joseph Smith, and the papyrus he claims he accurately translated. Nibley's writings speak to the papyrus, and he was found in error. That speaks to Nibley's credibility as well.
What I find interesting is that apparently the only people whose credibility can be questioned are those who are: not Mormon.
This is so funny when the shoe is on the other foot many of you fail to see it that way!
What I find interesting is that apparently the only people whose credibility can be questioned are those who are: not Mormon mainstream
go figure....
I think it's amazing the the liberal PC tactics have been so thoroughly employed on behalf of the Romney candidacy. Makes one wonder if there was a decree handed down by the old men in SLC......hmmmmmmm....watch for the tactic to be expanded in the next three years.
There has been a valiant attempt to shut down by various methods of censorship, any questioning of the validity of the mormon religion. Note the extreme reaction of ONE simple question by Huckabee, it has been milked to the max here on FR.
You’re the one who won’t address the substance of the issues. When we do, you say we’re going off topic, lol.
That speaks to your own credibility issue, as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
